AIBU- to thing that being very rich is inherently immoral

[Antonia87]

My very good friend and I have been discussing this at length. She believes that it is fine to be very rich and that the pursuit of wealth for his own purpose is not immoral. I believe that retaining considerably more money than you and your children need to have a life without financial worries is potentially immoral as every pound that you retain for your own indulgence is a pound not spent on alleviating the suffering of the poor. Thoughts for a friendly debate?

The standards in private schools are much the same as in state

This really isn't true. The standards can be much the same in individual circumstances, but there are thousands of schools that no matter how hard they try couldn't emulate the standards achieved in the worst private school.

If you look at Wales, where there are very few private schools there are lots of excellent state schools with comparable results to private schools so it would appear that the middle classes have had an impact on standards as they all use the state sector.

But that's Wales Antonia. There are huge regional variations when it comes to an "excellent school". In London, you can throw as much money as you like at a private school, but if your child doesn't pass the entrance exam and interview process they won't be offered a place. In highly populated areas like most of London, independent schools are highly academically selective simply because they can be due to demand. Often the odds of a place are 12:1. The four nearest independent schools to us achieve 95% A-A* at GCSE. while an "outstanding" comp achieves in the region of 30%. The difference is huge. A child who is academically "average" on a national level, will struggle to get into an independent school in London and will have to travel quite far to find a school they can get into. Even the schools that cater for for the child who is academically "average" are still achieving much better results than the nearby outstanding comps. It's a two-tier system and highly unfair, but people make huge sacrifices to get their DC into these schools, if at all possible. This is where the biggest chunk of their income goes.

Just by the fact that they are at private school means parents have a decent income. And therefore most likely decent jobs. And from a decent academic background. Therefore it is likely that even the worst private school would be better than most unselective comps.

I see the point. I think having more money than you could ever possibly use or need could be seen as immoral - or actually wasteful really. Thinking on the scale of royalty - like in the middle east- there’s so much money there it’s just accumulating more and more just sitting there doing nothing - nobody is ever going to be able to need or use it all it just sits there going to waste. It’s a shame really. There’s nothing anyone is ever going to be able to do about it though so I’m not going to let it bother me too much. It is what it is.

What entitles some people to more money than others?

Nothing entitles you to more money, but if you work hard, take risks etc you should be able to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

TammySwansonTwo

“Working hard” always seems to cause upset on MN. Some people work hard doing low paid work and that’s fine.

I think in this case working hard means people who work to move up the promotion ladder and better themselves.

Not everyone has that ability though. Not everyone is intelligent enough or skilled enough to work their way up and our country would be screwed if we didn't have an army of minimum wage workers. In order for some to be rich, many have to stay poor.

If you don't have the ability or inclination to go for a career with promotion, you will be confined to min wage jobs though, obviously.
I'm qualified to Pg level but work in a call centre for min wage.
I have no inclination to have a well paid career with responsibility.
Therefore, I can't complain that those who were inclined have more money than me, it's not rocket science.

I think being rich just puts the monetary power in your hands. It's like having lots of authority. You don't have to be inherently more immoral to acquire wealth. It is, perhaps, more challenging to retain morality and not succumb to greed. The responsibility lies with you to use and distribute the money appropriately.

Statistically whether people do or not is irrelevant. Personally it is about whether you are up to the challenge.

Myself I have some but not lots. Concerned about higher education costs for my DC primarily. Voted labour mainly for this reason and to support the national health system. But equally if money was to come our way it would relieve the higher education concerns. Could also look into more investments for our future to cover retirement which will not be easy by the time we are due to retire. These things will make us less dependent on others which is not entirely selfish, I don't think. Although I do think it is good to help others out too.

My DH gets CVs all the time from young people prepared to work for free, just to get experience in that industry. They get evening bar jobs to support themselves. Most of them end up staying on in a paid role and doing really well, but if they decide there are better opportunities or money elsewhere, then off they go. They are super flexible and have a clear vision of where they are going.

On the other hand, I have cousins who have claimed benefits for their entire adult lives and would never occur to them to do anything for nothing. They are the first to blame anyone and anything for their financial state e.g. "Immigrants taking all our jobs!" What jobs - you never tried to get one? Or they slag off "city wankers" as being selfish and corrupt etc, even though they have no concept of what it is to work a 35 hour week, let alone a 70 hour week.

Some industries pay better than others but, as PPs have said, if you don't have the ability, confidence or desire to do those jobs, there is little point in complaining about those who do. Nobody gets anything handed to them on a plate. An entrepreneur who makes £50 million will very quickly receive a tax bill for £25 million. This is not a bad thing for society.

You are missing the bigger picture OP.

What do you think a rich person does with their money? There are only two realistic possibilities.

1. Spends it.
2. Invests it.

What happens to £10 million deposited in a Swiss Bank account? What does the bank do with that money?
What does the borrow do with their money?
What does the employee of the borrower do with their money?

It is important to understand how money works before you start to make judgments for or against extreme capitalism or extreme socialism.

As long as they're not gathering it from, or using it to cause, the suffering of others I don't see the problem. Pretty much everyone in this country has more than someone living in the third world with no food security. Looking at what someone else has is a shortcut to misery.

YANBU. Wealth is relative and people can only get richer if others get poorer. That goes for countries as well as individuals.

Rich people often argue that wealth trickles down but IME the rich like to hang on to every penny and blame the poor for not working hard enough to escape poverty.

Rich people often argue that wealth trickles down but IME the rich like to hang on to every penny and blame the poor for not working hard enough to escape poverty.

Can you give an example of your experience please?

Funny how there is a whole industry in financial services that advises people how to maximise their wealth and how to minimise the amount of tax they pay.

Funny how there is a whole industry in financial services that advises people how to maximise their wealth and how to minimise the amount of tax they pay.

A business can use a cut in taxes wisely. A politician can use a raise in taxes to meet their own political ends.

Who deserves your £100? James Dyson? Jeremy Corbyn? Kim Jong Un?

Taxation is immoral unless it is used wisely.

I have two very rich friends. They had everything handed to them on a plate because they inherited zillions. They have never had to work unless they wanted to, they and their children have several houses as well as huge investments. I think the balance between earned income is taxed and inherited wealth is taxed is completely wrong.

I don't think income so much of a problem as wealth in the form of capital.
That's a real cause of ongoing, multi generational inequality.
I would like to see strict death duties to prevent the concentration of completely unearned wealth among rich families.

So society changes to accommodate ops plan

Everyone has an income of £250k per year.

20 years down the line, all is well.

Neighbour A is fairly thrifty. In that time they have saved £20,000,000, and lives in a house worth £500,000.

Neighbour B lives to live well, but isn't careless. They have saved £1,000,000 and own a house and furnishings worth the same amount of money.

Neighbour C likes to really enjoy life. Their house is worth £10,000,000 and they haven't saved anything, spending on holidays, first class travel, champagne, fancy cars and, of course, their beautiful house which is furnished with the best of everything.

Then disaster strikes. An earthquake hits, and all their houses and belongings are completely destroyed. Thankfully nobody was home at the time, and they all survive.

Is neighbour A immoral? And who should pick up the pieces for neighbour C, considering they all have had the same?

Of course it's not immoral to be very rich. An obvious example would be James Dyson, a self-made multi-millionaire who has created many thousands of well-paid jobs in his businesses.

What is immoral is not paying your taxes.

What is also immoral is having a tax system that overtaxes those who actually go out to work and under taxes those who just inherit - when the Duke of Westminster died ( last year?) not a penny was paid in inheritance or any other sort of tax.